Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Bill Olner in the Chair]

Clause 45

Power to authorise disclosure to the Board: Scotland

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Julia Goldsworthy: As we have been talking about the need to share data and the clause is among a set that deals with devolved bodies, I wanted to ask how we deal with the fragmentation of statistics and what co-operation exists with devolved Administrations. We know that the census agreement for 2011 has been signed by the three Registrars General of England and Wales, of Scotland and of Northern Ireland. None the less, the Treasury Committee report “Independence for Statistics” raised a concern that the fragmentation of some statistics across the UK was continuing. One of the report’s recommendations was to review the concordat on statistics. It states that the Select Committee
“welcome the Minister’s commitment, on behalf of the Government, to review the Concordat on Statistics, particularly in light of his suggestion that, while this fragmentation has been an issue for some time because of differing local circumstances and requirements, devolution has led to an inevitable intensification of the problem.”
It goes on to recommend
“that the Government negotiate a revised Concordat with the devolved administrations, that the National Statistician, in consultation with the chief statisticians for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, be given responsibility for drafting a revised Concordat and that the new independent board be given responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the revised Concordat.”
Taking into account that recommendation and the evidence of witnesses who believe that recent experience has provoked the need to review the issue now, surely it makes sense for a review and renegotiation to take place. I am asking for the Minister’s commitment not only to review the concordat but to renew it. What plans does he have to update that?

John Healey: If the hon. Lady looks at the official record of our discussions on Tuesday afternoon, she will see that we had quite a good debate on devolution and concerns about the coherence, comprehensiveness and co-ordination of statistics. I will not reiterate the detailed points covered by the Committee, but I will say one thing about the Treasury Committee and then deal specifically with the concordat, as I accept that we did not deal with it in particular detail on Tuesday afternoon. The hon. Lady will find that the Treasury Committee report was published before I could announce the full participation of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the Bill’s provisions. She will also probably find that that participation was welcomed by members of the Select Committee as well as by Opposition Front-Benchers.
As the hon. Lady said, I made it clear when I gave evidence to the Treasury Committee that we had begun work with the devolved Administrations to take a fresh look at the concordat and see where it needed updating and strengthening. The concordat is an important and useful arrangement that cannot be replicated or imported into primary legislation, so it has an important part to play alongside the Bill.
The hon. Lady will appreciate that producing UK statistics, and doing so in a combined way when those statistics relate to devolved matters, relies on the co-operation of the devolved Administrations rather than on legislation. All Administrations expressed their commitment to co-operation in the concordat, which was annexed to the memorandum of understanding on devolution in 2001. Given that it set the overall framework for co-operation and was supported by other non-legislative bilateral agreements between the Administrations, that framework had the full support of the devolved Administrations. The framework document described in detail how the framework for national statistics, which we introduced in 2000, would operate in each Administration. There is clearly more to do, and that is probably the reason behind the hon. Lady’s concern. I strongly welcome the decision of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to sign up to the legislation. It will give the board a role working with all four Administrations. I expect the board’s objective of promoting and safeguarding the quality of official statistics, which includes coherence with other statistics, as stated explicitly in clause 7(2)(b), to give it a role in promoting consistent statistics throughout the United Kingdom.
To further our aim for improvement in the consistency and coherent co-ordination of statistics, we are working with the devolved Administrations to see whether other, non-legislative mechanisms may be needed to support the Bill, including the possible revision of the concordat on statistics between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that we are working on those non-legislative matters with the commitment of all four Administrations, although the work that we are doing on the legislation may be more obvious.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Power to authorise use of information by the board

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Healey: I think that the Committee may wish for a brief explanation of the clause, as it is an important part of the Bill. It sets out a mechanism that allows the board to use information that is received from a public authority, by creating a power for the Treasury to make regulations to authorise the use of that information, where there is an existing legal barrier to the board’s using it. The power may be used to allow the board to use for additional purposes information that it has already received, which could allow it to improve the quality of statistics. That in turn could improve policy making, resource allocation and the delivery of public services. The power may also be used to reduce the burden on data providers, such as requests for businesses and individuals to fill out surveys, by removing the need to collect information that is already held by the board.
The clause uses the same mechanism as that in clauses 44 to 46. Regulations must be made with the consent of another Minister of the Crown who, together with the Treasury, must be satisfied that the disclosure is required for the board to carry out the functions for which the disclosure is authorised, and that the disclosure is in the public interest.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 48 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Cessation of Office for National Statistics etc

Theresa Villiers: I wish to speak briefly on the clause, which envisages the abolition of the Office for National Statistics and the Statistics Commission. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of both those organisations.
With regard to the ONS, the key problem that we have focused on is the treatment by Ministers of statistics. Of course it is important to consider the methodology and quality of the production of statistics, but there is consensus that they are of high quality. The problem that we are trying to address is political interference, or the perception of it, in the fruits of the labours of statisticians. I pay tribute to the high quality of the work of Government statisticians.
I also congratulate the Statistics Commission on its excellent work since it was founded in 2000, and I give credit to the Government for setting it up. It has been a fearless defender of statistical integrity and a fearless critic of ministerial activities in a number of instances. As we have stated, it is a weakness of the Bill that it merges the activities of the Office for National Statistics and the Statistics Commission. That was why we tabled a number of amendments to separate responsibility for the production of statistics from the responsibility to scrutinise their production and release. There would have been a much more effective structure if the Bill had kept those functions separate, as illustrated by the effective role played by the Statistics Commission in the past few years.

Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is absolutely right to single out the clause. It is contained in a part of the Bill entitled “Consequential” but it is not entirely consequential. We are, of course, replacing the ONS with the statistics board, but we are abolishing the only watchdog that we have, the Statistics Commission. I, too, as the chairman of the Sub-Committee to which the commission was accountable, wish to pay tribute to its work under first Sir John Kingman and then Professor David Rhind. They had a small budget and a small staff, which has contributed in no small measure to the proposed improvements.
I ask the Financial Secretary for more detail on the timetable for the abolition of the two bodies. As I understand clause 71, it refers to different commencement orders being laid for different provisions. I am not sure whether the abolition will have to come into force as a whole or whether it will be possible to delay the commencement of clause 52(b)—the abolition of the commission—until we are sure that the appropriate replacement scrutiny functions are in place. I understand why the board will take on the existing functions and staff of the ONS—that is quite clear. It does not necessarily follow that within a week or so of the Bill being passed the Statistics Commission, our only watchdog, must be swept away. Given the pace with which change is implemented in the House, it is wholly possible that the House willnot have come to a conclusion on the scrutiny arrangements that it wishes to make to replace the Statistics Commission.
I understand that it is not for the Financial Secretary or the Government to prescribe the new scrutiny arrangements. Indeed he has emphasised, if I am right, that that will be a matter for the House as a whole or probably for both Houses of Parliament. However, it is in the gift of the Financial Secretary to decide when the existing watchdog will be abolished under the clause. Can he confirm that it will be possible for him to delay the commencement order in clause 52(b) if he wishesto do so?
Will the Minister give the Committee further illustration of the proposed timetable? Is it intended to abolish both bodies swiftly after the Bill is passed, or is there to be a longer implementation period? He will understand that a large number of staff not only of the ONS but of the commission will be affected. It would be helpful if he indicated the timetable for the replacement of the two bodies that are being abolished.

John Healey: I shall begin by replying to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, and then I shall turn to the questions that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks asked.
The clause provides for the Office of National Statistics and the Statistics Commission to cease to exist as administrative entities. “Abolition” of the Office of National Statistics, as the hon. Lady put it, is rather misleading and inappropriate, because its functions and service will be carried out under the legal remit of the board, which will become the legal entity.

Theresa Villiers: I concede that the use of “abolition” was infelicitous.

John Healey: I have trouble saying that word, let alone understanding its proper application. However, I accept the hon. Lady’s point.
 The board will assume all functions that the Office of National Statistics undertakes, with the exception of the civil registration duties. I am not sure that “abolition” is entirely appropriate or that it pays due recognition to the role of the Statistics Commission. Its work has paved the way for the Bill, its responsibilities will be assumed by the board, and the commission has contributed a great deal to our understanding of how important it is for the statistics system to evolve.
I join in paying special tribute to the chairmen who have served the Statistics Commission and to their work. Over the seven years of its existence, they have consistently produced high-quality, wide-ranging research and reports, which have greatly added to our understanding of how the system has worked, and have given us ideas about how to fashion it in the future.
We have made it clear before that the property rights and liabilities of the ONS will transfer to the board. Any statutory references to the ONS will be amended after Royal Assent so that they refer to the board.
In response to the questions that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks asked, I have in earlier discussions about the Bill been clear that at an appropriate point during its passage, I shall consider the appointment of a chairman to the shadow statistics board, allowing him or her to start without delay preparations to put the board in place. I shall do so without offending any propriety of this House or of the other place. However, all hon. Members will agree that the current shape of the statistics system will not benefit from undue delay, and if we can move properly to ensure that the transition is as rapid and as smooth as possible, we should.
I have also been clear that if Parliament assents to the Bill, we want the board in place and in operation from April 2008. The Statistics Commission has already undertaken some useful work to prepare what it believes could form the basis of a code of practice. It will be one of the board’s responsibilities, and central to the operation of the new statistical system. The commission is undertaking important work with us to prepare to hand over its responsibilities to the statistics board.
The short answer to the second question askedby the hon. Member for Sevenoaks is that it is theoretically, legally and technically possible to delay the implementation of paragraph (b). However, it is probably most appropriate to ensure that the changes are implemented together, not least because the commission’s responsibilities will become the board’s and there is no obvious sense or gain in having two competing bodies with the same responsibilities. I hope that that is helpful to hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary first of all for what he said about the Statistics Commission and secondly for making it clear that different parts of this section could in fact be brought into effect on different dates.
I am not sure that he has gone as far as he can on the point about the watchdog. I am not sure that he fully appreciated what I was saying and perhaps I did not put it as fully as I should have done. If the new board comes into operation in April 2008, Parliament cannot set up a fresh scrutiny process. It cannot scrutinise a board that does not exist. If the Statistics Commission is abolished, therefore, in its watchdog function—I appreciate that some of its functions are transferring to the board— once the board begins its legal existence, as he hopes, in April 2008 there is going to be a gap in the scrutiny arrangements before new arrangements are put into place. I urge him, if he to reflect on that point. Parliament can scrutinise the statistics board only once it gets going in April 2008 and I still suggest there may be some merit in continuing the life of the Statistics Commission at least for the rest of this year so that we are not left with a gap when no one is scrutinising what is being proposed.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger, not uncharacteristically, on quite an important point, but I think he would accept that it really cannot be for me to propose or set the terms in which Parliament considers how it wants to play its proper role of scrutinising and holding the new system to account or indeed the pace at which Parliament considers that. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope, and I know from the interest that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House takes in these matters, that such discussionsand any decisions that may be appropriate will not be left until the statistics board is up and running inApril 2008.
It also seems to me, although the hon. Gentleman may have greater experience and be able to contradict me on this, that Parliament can set itself up in any way that it chooses to scrutinise whatever it chooses. If Parliament decides that certain arrangements are appropriate for the new system, I can see no immediate reason why it should not set such arrangements up whenever it wished. Perhaps I am tempting fate, but it may well be that, if Parliament does that, it will take an active interest in scrutinising and holding to account the preparation that Ministers and others are making for the full operation of the new system that will, I hope, come into force, in April 2008.
I do not see the problem that the hon. Gentleman points to. Although it is not within my authority or remit to solve this, I hope that he will play his part in Parliament in making sure that scrutiny and accountability arrangements are in place in good time. I do not see the strength of his argument for prolonging the existence of the Statistics Commission when we will have in place a statistics board taking over the responsibilities of the Statistics Commission, with a much wider and more powerful remit to boot.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Transfers etc from ONS to the Board

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fallon: Clause 53 deals with the legal transfers from the ONS to the board and may include the current property of the ONS. That gives us the opportunity once more to be clear about the property that will be transferred. We touched on this issue obliquely last Thursday—under your chairmanship, Mr. Olner—when we discussed the position of the staff and whether the London office, currently in Pimlico, will be retained.
I assume from the clause that the ONS headquarters in Pimlico will be transferred to the board, but there is uncertainty about how much of the London office will be retained. I understand that, at the time of the Lyons and Gershon reviews, the assurance was given that a London presence—presumably, a London property—would be retained after the move to Newport. However, I am not entirely clear whether those assurances still stand and whether the 100 or so staff will remain there after 2010. Will the Financial Secretary clarify whether the lease—or whatever it is—on Drummond Gate will be transferred formally to the new board and, if not, whether the new board will retain a London property?

John Healey: During our discussions on the previous clause—the hon. Gentleman might like to check this in the official record—I said that all ONS property rights and liabilities will transfer to the statistics board. Beyond that, decisions about how those properties, or any others, and the work force are managed will be matters for the ONS and, in future, the statistics board. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that those matters are not my responsibility.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 54 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Replacement of ONS by the Board: consequential

Amendments made: No. 1, in schedule 3, page 39, leave out lines 17 to 21.
No. 2, in schedule 3, page 40, line 23, at end insert—

None

In section 53 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, insubsection (8)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “Office for National Statistics” substitute “Statistics Board”;
(b) in paragraph (b), for “that Office” substitute “the Board”.

None

In section 1 of the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001, in subsection (5), in the definition of “the retail prices index”—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “Office for National Statistics” substitute “Statistics Board”;
(b) in paragraph (b), for “that Office” substitute “the Board”.’.
No. 3, in schedule 3, page 40, leave out lines 28 to 32.
No. 4, in schedule 3, page 40, line 38, at end insert—

None

In section 923 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (definitions), in the definition of “retail prices index”—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “Office for National Statistics” substitute “Statistics Board”;
(b) in paragraph (b), for “that Office” substitute “the Board”.’.—[John Healey.]

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 58

Money

Theresa Villiers: I beg to move amendment No. 175, in clause 58, page 28, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 and insert—
‘(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the expenses of the Board shall be paid out of monies provided by Parliament.
(2) The Chairman of the Board shall, for the financial year ending immediately after this Act has been passed and for each subsequent financial year, prepare an estimate of the six year rolling use of resources by the Board; and the Commission for Official Statistics shall examine that estimate and lay it before the House of Commons with such modifications, if any, as the Commission thinks fit.
(2A) In discharging its functions under subsection (2) above, the Commission for Official Statistics shall have regard to any advice given by the Board and the Cabinet Office.
(2B) The Commission for Official Statistics shall appoint a person to be responsible as accounting officer for preparing resource accounts for the Board for each financial year; and that officer shall discharge such other duties as the Commission may determine.
(2C) The Commission for Official Statistics shall appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General as auditor for the Board.’.
The amendment is linked to an issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham commented earlier. It deals with the crucial matter of how the new arrangements put in place by the Bill will be funded. We propose to put the funding decisions in thehands of a parliamentary commission of the sort that was described and discussed in relation to earlier amendments. Two other bodies are funded in a similar way: the Electoral Commission and the National Audit Office.
It is obvious why the clause and the amendment are important: it is possible for funding arrangements to undermine measures that ensure genuine independence from political control. Therefore, the problem to be addressed is how to ensure that there are proper limits on and scrutiny of the budget, while preventing the ministerial interference that the Bill is designed to deal with.
We in the official Opposition believe that the best way to tackle that conundrum is to put the fundingin the hands of Parliament and have a direct parliamentary vote on it. That would create the necessary independence from the Treasury, while securing value for money for the taxpayer. Doing so would give the board the opportunity to work closely on its funding arrangements and have them scrutinised, agreed and determined by the commission that we want to set up.
The concern about funding arrangements possibly undermining true independence for statistical services was addressed by a number of stakeholders who contributed to the consultation and, probably, to the evidence taken by the Treasury Sub-Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. Certainly, the British Society for Population Studies emphasised that
“Arrangements should be made to avoid concerns about political manipulation.”
The British Urban and Regional Information Systems Association stated that
“the initial level of funding should be determined by a joint review involving Parliament”.
A similar comment was made by the fire and rescue statistics user group.
We tabled the amendment to answer the concerns of the stakeholders in the statistical community, who want greater parliamentary involvement in the funding process. Essentially, there is concern that the Treasury’s involvement in determining funding will lead to the Government determining the scope of additional work done by the ONS. The Economic and Social Research Council, for example, was anxious that the Government might push funding for statistical series that they wanted, but not emphasise funding for statistical series that they were not so keen on.

John Healey: I want to understand the principle on which some of the hon. Lady’s ideas are based. Does she accept that statistics, as a general public good, should be principally funded by general taxation? If so, does she not accept that the Treasury, as the Government’s finance Department—particularly with its responsibility for value for money and accounting for the public good use of that money—should be involved in setting the budget, albeit on different terms than those suggested by the hon. Lady, as I haveset out?

Theresa Villiers: I do not accept that the Treasury is exclusively qualified to carry out that task. The powerful joint commission of both Houses of Parliament that we propose could be equally tough in safeguarding value for money for the taxpayer. The Bill leaves such questions unanswered. It does not tell us about the special funding arrangements—to which the Financial Secretary referred on Second Reading—that should be determined by Parliament.
Although the Financial Secretary has made it clear that he is not prepared to accept our overall parliamentary model for the whole scope of the new structures, would he be prepared to consider other alternatives to increase Parliament’s involvement in scrutinising the funding and budget process?
Most importantly, the Financial Secretary has an opportunity to clarify how the five-yearly review to which he referred on Second Reading will operate. He could also reassure us that measures will be taken to avoid the politicised interference in the budget that, for example, the ESRC fears. We need a clear indication of how the new arrangements will work and how they will secure the genuine independence of the statistical services.

Rob Marris: I have a couple of questions for the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. First, will she say which other body has the sort of funding and scrutiny arrangements proposed in the amendment? Secondly, she said that politicised interference in the budget process is a risk that she is concerned about and that the amendment is intended to address it. Has the ONS or the Statistics Commission, to her knowledge, ever complained about such politicised interference in the setting of their budgets?

David Gauke: At a time when senior politicians of all parties are trying to rebalance the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, the amendment would give the Financial Secretary yet another opportunity to make his name in history as a great champion of the rights of the legislature by giving greater powers to Parliament. That would achieve the objective of rebalancing that relationship set out by the Chancellor in his recent interviews. Given that the Financial Secretary has let other such opportunities slip through his grasp, I hope that he might take it.

Brooks Newmark: I should also like to support the amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. I will be interested to hear what the Financial Secretary believes is wrong with the proposal, because increased parliamentary scrutiny can only be a good thing in increasing public confidence in statistics. What is wrong with removing such powers from the Treasury? Unfortunately, whether the Financial Secretary likes it or not, there has been a perception in the past 10 years that the Treasury tends to be somewhat meddlesome. Would it not be good to increase the public’s confidence in the new body by supporting the amendment?

Michael Fallon: There is a need for the amendment, and I wish to speak in favour of it. I am not sure whether it would be needed if the Government had provided much more detail and clarity on how the funding arrangements will operate. The Financial Secretary will know that that was a matter of serious concern tothe Treasury Committee, because he appeared in front of it.
The Treasury Committee stated in recommendation 21:
“It is important that the Government consider the detail of the process whereby the new statistics office’s budget will be set... We look forward to the Government producing detailed proposals, and recommend that it outlines these proposals in its response to this report.”
The Government did not do so. We also commented in recommendation 22 that there was little detail in the Green Paper and that
“the Government was unable to provide us with any further detail or clarification.”
Importantly, we went on to share not our concerns but those of the Statistics Commission—the Government’s own watchdog—and other statistical authorities around the world, particularly the chief statistician of Canada, that
“the proposals, as they stand, could undermine the new independent statistics office’s ability to determine its own work programme.”
That is why it is a matter of some regret that we have not yet heard details of how the new budget arrangements will be set. [Interruption.]

Bill Olner: Order. Will the person who is responsible for the device that is bleeping please stop it doing so?

Michael Fallon: It has been a long time since the Green Paper, but all that we have heard so far is thatthe budget will be set according to a five-year programme—that is pretty sketchy detail to go on. For example, we do not know what will happen if the statistics board is unhappy with its budget. It is not clear who would negotiate with the Treasury on its behalf. That is one of the weaknesses of the Treasury retaining residual responsibility. The Financial Secretary could virtually argue with himself, rather than give authority to a different Minister to argue on the board’s behalf.
If the statistics board is unhappy with the budget allocated, it will be unhappy for the next five or six years—or for whatever the duration of the budget—during which time it will have little recourse. It might also be unhappy more generally, as we have indicated in earlier amendments, with the budgetary resources allocated to departmental statistical work. The Financial Secretary rejected our amendments that would have given the board more direct oversight of funding and staffing within different Departments.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, but I would not have do so if we had not been given such thin detail on how the budgetary process will work. The amendment is very useful because it gives the Financial Secretary the chance to provide that detail, for which we have waited almost a year.

John Healey: Once again, the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire tempts me, but I must say that my principal purpose in serving my constituency and in government is not to find a place in history. That is a matter for others.
I say to the hon. Member for Braintree that what is wrong with the amendment in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is precisely what was wrong when we discussed the matter in detail earlier. His desire to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the system should be satisfied by the provisions in the Bill. They give Parliament the potential to play a much more active role. Again, we have discussed that at some length.
On the idea of a parliamentary commission for official statistics, I have said before that statistical production is essentially an Executive function and most appropriately located within Government, rather than Parliament. Statistics are a public good and serve a wide range of users. That view was supported during consultation and by the Treasury Committee report earlier this year. In addition, we considered and rejected the proposals published by the Conservative party. We looked to international experience and systems, and the only country in the world that we could find where the statistics system is the responsibility of the legislature, not the Executive, is Mongolia.

Theresa Villiers: But that model was promoted and supported by the Leader of the House in 1995.

John Healey: In 1995, we had virtually no system for securing the quality and independence of statistics, nor any reform of the system for decades. It was only in 2000, as part of this Government’s reform process, that we created a basis on which to build. In fact, that was the most thorough reform of the statistical system for nearly 30 years; it completely changed the system and the views of the way in which it needed to develop. If the hon. Lady wishes to take the matter up with the current Leader of the House, she will find that he is one of the strongest supporters in the Government of the Bill and its provisions.

Rob Marris: My hon. Friend mentioned Mongolia. Quite often in the Committee the evidence of the chief statistician of Canada to the Select Committee has been prayed in aid. Is my hon. Friend aware of any of the 14 legislatures in Canada employing a model akin to the one proposed in the amendment?

John Healey: I well know my hon. Friend’s expertise and experience. He has lived in Canada and may even be a British and Canadian dual citizen, so he may know Canada better than any other member of the Committee. He is quite right that Canada has a distinct federal structure, but the federal responsibility of the statistician in Canada is quite different from the central statistical service function in the United Kingdom. As I have explained to the Committee before, there is no appropriate universal model when considering the reforms. Any country, with its different circumstances, history, forms of government and policy, will rightly and inevitably require a statistical system suited to itself. In the legislation, we are setting up an innovative system that is breaking new ground, and there is simply no automatic precedent anywhere else in the world.
On the proposal of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, we have discussed why both the National Audit Office and the Electoral Commission in principle are not appropriate comparators. I did not merely refer to plans for a new way of funding the statistics board in the future, as she suggested, but gave a commitment on how the Government would do that. I gave a commitment to the House on Second Reading, on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks rehearsed again for the Committee the view on funding taken by the Treasury Committee. He will accept, I think, that the proposals for funding as they stood when the Select Committee undertook its inquiry, the Canadian chief statistician gave his evidence, the Committee reported and the Government gave their formal response are different from the ones that we have before us. Only on Second Reading, after the Committee reported and the Government formally responded, was I able to set out in more detail the commitments on funding.
For the benefit of the Committee, I shall clarify those commitments. To meet the key requirementsof the new statistical system of independence, transparency and flexibility, we will guarantee the board funding certainty over periods of five years, in direct contrast to the normal spending review period and process of setting such funding commitments. In addition, that certainty will be guaranteed through the setting of a transparent formula, so that annual resources are given to the board in each of the five years. Furthermore, funding for the census will also be set for a five-year period and integrated into the overall budget of the board. Parliament must then hold the board to account for the way in which it allocates and controls its resources, in the same way as Parliament holds the Government to account for decisions such as resource allocation. As I said, the role of Parliament in scrutinising the new system will be central, including in matters of funding and resources for the board. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment to a vote.

Theresa Villiers: I shall turn first to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. As I said in my opening remarks, I believe that the nearest funding parallels are the Electoral Commission and the National Audit Office. The parallels are not exact, but they are useful precedents, having something in common with what is proposed here.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could give specific examples of alleged political interference using the budget process. No, I do not have such examples and I made it clear that I was referring to the anxieties that people had expressed about the potential for such interference. My hon. Friends may come up with such examples, but I have not heard of any, although my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks is right to make it plain that the Treasury Committee and many people who gave evidence to it were very anxious about the issue. Again, it is a matter of perception; if people believe that there is potential for interference using the Treasury’s powers over the budget, it will diminish the strength of the Government’s proposed reforms.
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, but he still has not responded to all the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, particularly about what the board will do if it is not satisfied with its budget, how the negotiations will take place and who will speak up for the board in negotiating with the Treasury. The Minister says repeatedly that Parliament will have the strongest scrutiny role in respect of the new structures. I welcome the rhetoric but I cannot see how Parliament’s role will be different in that context to scrutiny of any other non-ministerial department.

John Healey: The case for a greater role for Parliament in scrutinising the operation of the new system is not just rhetoric; it is contained in and provided for in the Bill.

Theresa Villiers: I should be grateful if the Minister would explain again how Parliament’s role is different in that context from its scrutiny of the activities of any department.

Brooks Newmark: We have rightly heard much from the Financial Secretary in praise of the tremendous leadership of my hon. Friend the. Member for Sevenoaks in the Treasury Sub-Committee. My hon. Friend raised a number of pertinent points and recommendations made by the Sub-Committee, on which a number of us served, on this issue. Hasthe Financial Secretary followed up any of those recommendations?

Theresa Villiers: I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that question.
The Minister’s final point to counter the amendment was that statistics are an executive function of government. They are certainly important for the operation of government, but regardless of whether one sees them as strictly part of an executive function, that in itself is no reason why a parliamentary Committee cannot be in charge of the budget, whether or not statistics are part of the executive functions of government. How is that relevant in deciding which organisation should determine the budget and what the structure should be?
The Minister was disdainful of the model we propose, which he said had no precedent anywhere in the world apart from Mongolia. Although the Leader of the House advocated that model, a couple of minutes after referring again to the Mongolian example, the Minister went on to say that he is breaking new ground. When we challenged him on the structures proposed earlier in the Bill about the mix of executive and scrutiny functions he said that there was no parallel and that the Government were doing something completely different. International models to match our proposal may be limited, but he was unable to find any other model, either in the UK or across the world, that matched the structure that he proposes.
I am still disappointed that we have not had more detail on how the five-year funding formula will work. The Minister said that there will be a transparent formula, but who will set it? When will Parliament know what it is? Will it be subject to variations and modifications? Will it be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and, if so, what sort of parliamentary scrutiny? Many questions are left unanswered, and I shall seek to divide the Committee on the amendment.

Michael Fallon: The longer the debate continues the more important my hon. Friend’s amendment appears. She has been making the case that it is not apparent how Parliament’s role will be strengthened by the Government’s proposals. Indeed, it is fairly evident that Parliament’s role in the statistical function of the budget process could be weakened.
Parliament’s job is not only to scrutinise the money; it is to vote the money. We will be confronted with a proposed sum that is fixed for five years. It is not clear how that will be increased year by year, but we have been told that there will be some form of indexation. Parliament will therefore have no role at all in modifying the amount to meet any new requirements that might emerge, to respond to the unhappiness of the board about its funding for the discharge of a particular function or to implement recommendations that might be made from one year to the next. The purpose of Parliament is to vote the money. If the Minister is proposing that that expenditure is taken outside the normal process of parliamentary approval and locked away for five years, it is incumbent on him to give us more detail as to how the budget will change year by year.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 60 to 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65

Establishment of Registrar General as corporation sole

John Healey: We now turn to part 2 of the Bill, which deals with questions concerning the Registrar General and future provisions for the registration service, a matter that I am particularly pleased we were able to cover.
As I said on Second Reading, we are using the Bill as an opportunity to establish, finally, proper employment rights for registration officers in England and Wales. Currently, they are appointed and paid by a local authority, but can be dismissed only by the Registrar General. They do not, therefore, enjoy the rights and protections afforded to other staff, such as access to an employment tribunal. That has for some time been a great concern for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. The provisions in this part of the Bill are in no small measure due directly to his continuing efforts on the subject. He may well wish to add his own comments on that.
Registration officers provide a vital service that benefits all of us in the community. Almost all of us will come into contact with the registration service at some point in our lives—normally at the most important moments in our lives and the lives of our families. It is only right and proper that this group of workers is given for the first time the rights and protections that are already available to others.
Under the Registration Service Act 1953, the Registrar General for England and Wales is currently a statutory office holder, appointed by Her Majesty, with functions set out in statute. That has been the position since the post was created in 1836. The Registrar General has statutory functions relating to the civil registration service, but also has other, statistical, responsibilities such as conducting the census. Under the Bill, the Registrar General’s current statistical functions will become the responsibility of the statistics board. The Registrar General will remain as head of the General Register Office and will retain his or her responsibility for civil registration in England and Wales.
Clause 65 modernises the position of the Registrar General, who is head of the civil registration servicein England and Wales, by establishing him as a corporation sole. I concede that that does not sound very modern, but a corporation sole is an office occupied by one person that has a separate legal identity from the office holder. Also, the office continues to exist even if the office holder retires and is replaced, or if there is a vacancy in the post. Currently, the rights and liabilities of the Registrar General are personally held by the office holder on behalf of the Crown. Establishing the Registrar General as a corporation sole means that the rights and liabilities of the office of Registrar General are separated from the office holder and the rights and liabilities become the responsibility of the office, rather than the office holder. That means that in the future the Registrar General could enter into contracts in his or her own right and such contracts would be the responsibility of the office, rather than the office holder.
Separating the Registrar General from the National Statistician, and the General Register Office from the Office for National Statistics, will reinforce the ability of the Registrar General to operate independently, while still allowing the General Register Office to be incorporated into a wider structure if that is what is determined. I hope that the Committee will accept that that flexibility is sensible and desirable, given that the location of the General Register Office has still to be finally determined. It has been considered as part of potential machinery of government changes. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will agree that clause 65 should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Employment status of officials

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Brian Iddon: It is strange how one gets involved in business in this place. In the mid-1990s, I was a director of the city challenge in Bolton and we were looking around for flagship schemes. I proposed to the then leader of the council, Bob Howarth, that we should bring back into use an old hall on a hill overlooking Bolton that was in a rather attractive park. The hall had been boarded up for several years. It had previously been a mill owner’s house. I proposed that we move the registration service in Bolton out of dreadful premises in the town centre—where the brides came out into patches of oil on a taxi rank—to that lovely old hall set in a beautiful park. That cost £1 million, but it was achieved.
The registration service there today supports a community centre, a hospitality suite with bars, and so on. I was pleased to hear that it celebrated its 10th anniversary last week and that Oliver Barton, who was the principal officer at the time, returned and helped them celebrate. I was pleased in one way, but not so pleased in another, when my eldest daughter, Sally, chose to get married in Mere hall—the lovely old hall that I am talking about—right in the middle of the election campaign, which brought me to the House in 1997.
When Joyce Quin, the former hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West was promoted to the other place as Baroness Quin, the Society of Registration Officers was casting around for a new patron for England and Wales. It was no surprise, therefore, when my name popped up. I was initially pleased to be invited, because I thought that it was a great honour, but it soon dawned on me that the society was giving me a huge responsibility, because it was seeking to achieve what the Bill will, hopefully, bring about. It has taken 10 years of campaigning. I have lost count of how many Ministers I have met, both at the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury, with officers of the Society of Registration Officers and, latterly, Unison to try to bring about this measure.
It is odd that registration officers are appointed, housed and paid by local authorities and that their pensions are arranged by local authorities, but only one person—the Registrar General in Pimlico, London—has the right to dismiss them. When I began this campaign there was no right of appeal against dismissal. At least in the early days of the campaign we won the right of appeal, but appeals had to be heard by the Registrar General in Pimlico and he could hear them only on the basis of new evidence.
During my time as the society’s patron at least 18 members of the service have been dismissed—some of them under bitter circumstances that I do not want to relate.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Bill Olner: Dr. Iddon was just bringing his remarks to a close.

Brian Iddon: Mr. Olner, I will take the hint. I thought that it was very considerate of the House authorities to sound the wedding bells right in the middle of my speech. [Laughter.]
What clause 66 will do is transfer the employment of superintendent registrars and their colleagues to the employment of local authorities, which is what we have been campaigning for all this time. The Society of Registration Officers—SORO—tells me that it has historical records to suggest that this campaign has been going on for 60 years. I have documentary evidence to suggest that it started at least in 1985 in the House when an efficiency scrutiny was published which recommended this transfer of employment.

Julia Goldsworthy: The hon. Gentleman has been very helpful in explaining the genesis of the campaign, which has resulted in this measure. As patron of the Society of Registration Officers, can he tell us what proportion of registration officers are members of the society and what other consultation took place with registrars who were members of Unison or other groups to ensure consultation across the whole profession?

Bill Olner: Order. The hon. Lady should not be tempting my colleague into talking about something that is not actually in the Bill.

Brian Iddon: I will give a brief answer. I cannot give a percentage, but I know that the figure is extremely high and that the consultation has been going on for as long as I have been involved with the campaign. There are one or two members of SORO who still recognise that the status of being a statutory officer is rather special, but frankly I think that it is an outdated status, and it causes problems. What we are doing in clause 66 is the correct way forward.
There is another difficulty in the transfer in that statutory officers, as registration officers are, do not have any official employer and therefore on the whole do not come under employment legislation. This area is a bit grey and rather complex, as the Library research paper suggests. Under some of the employment legislation they could be classed as workers, but there have not been many court cases to test this. Myself, Unison and SORO have campaigned on two parallel tracks, one of which has resulted in clause 66, and we have also campaigned with the Department of Trade and Industry to bring in section 23 of the Employment Act 2002.
This clause is a better way forward, as the Library research paper suggests. To apply section 23 would have left registration officers in that grey area and there would have been some court cases before it was illustrated that employment rights could be protected under the Employment Act.
I thank the Financial Secretary for taking on board what is essentially my ten-minute Bill from the last Session of Parliament. He has listened, and I am grateful for that, as are all the people concerned.
As I have mentioned, clause 66 and part 2 have the support of SORO and Unison. They also have the support of the Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services and the employers’ organisation as well. One problem remains; because registration officers have no legal employer, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 do not apply to them. Therefore, I am very pleased that the Government have seen their way to build into clause 66 protection of all the employment rights of that group of workers. Incidentally, there are 1,700 registration officers—not a large number, but a significant one. The clause protects the employment and pension rights of those people when they are transferred. Their service will be seen as continuous, so that their pension rights will transfer into the schemes of local authorities, which in any case already organise their pensions.
It would be inappropriate of me not to thank Karen Knapton this afternoon. She has worked with me for many years as the honorary secretary of the Society of Registration Officers. She has now retired, and she would have liked to have seen this campaign bear fruit today. I am now continuing my work with Julie Hole, the present honorary secretary. I thank those people. I will be able to go to the conference this spring and give my 10th and valedictory speech—as Members know, I am retiring. Instead of trying to find excuses for the Government, as I have done at all my annual presentations in the past nine years, I will be able to go out on a high note. Bearing in mind what you said at the beginning of this part of the debate, Mr. Olner, I thank you for your patience.

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the chance to say a few words about the employment status of registration officers in England and Wales. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the important work undertaken by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on the issue. As we have heard, he has been campaigning tirelessly for many years and he deserves a huge amount of credit for the measure.
The Opposition welcome the changes. We would have been happy if the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill had proceeded a few years ago. That did not happen, thanks to the late great Eric Forth. He, of course, had firm opinions about the use of private Member’s Bill time for Government business. We are delighted to see that the Government have used their own business time to propose the measure to regularise the employment position of registrars and superintendent registrars. It is clear that the law needs changing, and I would like to join the Financial Secretary in paying tribute to the work done by registrars at important and sometimes stressful ceremonies in people’s family lives. They deal with the public with great care and sensitivity. I would particularly like to single out the registrars working in my constituency in Chipping Barnet for their valuable work.
We support the move to make registrars local authority employees and to provide them with employment rights and protection. It seems not only sensible but just and consistent to bring the employment of registration officers into line with that of employees of local authorities. I am sure that the change will be welcomed by organisations that have long campaigned for it, such as SORO, Unison and the other organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
There is one point on which I seek reassurancefrom the Minister. I have received a representation from one registration officer who is unhappy with the Government’s proposals. She fears that the changes could remove one of the safeguards relating to the registration of deaths. Registration officers decide whether to refer a death to the coroner. The registrar in question is concerned that if registration officers and coroners become local authority employees, that will in some way interfere with the freedom of registrars to take a decision in the public interest. Since I have not heard from any other registrars on the point, it is reasonable to conclude that that is a minority concern, but because it has been raised with me it would be useful to hear the Financial Secretary’s view. Is he confident that the Bill will ensure that sufficient safeguards are still in place on the registration of deaths? Have such concerns been brought to his attention?
According to the Association of Registration and Celebratory Services, some concern has been expressed that registrars would suffer a loss of independenceif they became local authority employees. My understanding is that such concerns seem largely to have been laid to rest and that the reform is broadly welcomed not just by members on both sides of the Committee but by a significant majority of registration officers. We welcome the proposals and would be grateful for clarification on the points that I have mentioned.

Rob Marris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, on the wonderful work that he has done on this matter. Will the Financial Secretary clarify one point? Clause 66(8) defines a local authority. Will a unitary authority such as Wolverhampton, where my constituency is located, come under the rubric of paragraph (b), which includes in that definition
“a district council in England for an area without a county council”?
Wolverhampton city council is not commonly described as a district council, and a number of other authorities are in the same position.

Julia Goldsworthy: I join everyone else in welcoming the proposals and congratulating the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on his work in bringing them forward. It makes sense to deal with this matter at the same time as changes to the statistics system.
I wish to raise one issue—the possibility of a registration officer simultaneously holding theposition of deputy registration officer. I have had correspondence, I suspect from the same person as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I believe that this person holds the post of registration officer and is also deputy officer. Deputy superintendent registrars and deputy registrars are already local authority employees, so what impact will the clause have on people who hold deputy as well as main registrar posts? That relates to subsections (2)(c) and (d), which may well be clarified in subsections (5)(a) and (b), but it is worth putting the matter on record.

John Healey: I shall first respond to the substantive contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. He gave an eloquent and rather moving account of his work and what has motivated it over the years. The progress that can be made through private Member’s legislation and the dividends that can come from persistent pressure are a testament to the role of Members of the House. His work on the matter is in the best traditions of the House and the role of Members of Parliament.
The clause will give about 1,700 registration officers status as local government employees. For the first time, they will have access to the tribunals, rights and protections that others have had for some time. My hon. Friend is right. I made sure that clause 66 ensured that registration officers’ existing terms and conditions were retained after the formal transfer of employment status. Not least as a result of his work, the proposals command the support of all bodies in this rather densely-populated field of local government organisations. I listened to him carefully, but am not sure whether he mentioned that Unison was strongly supportive of his Bill and his campaign to secure this new status for registration officers. When he goes to the annual conference of the Society of Registration Officers later this year, he can give it the good news and, I hope, convey the Government’s and the Committee’s good wishes. The society provides a vital service and the change in the clause is long overdue.
The concerns raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet have not been brought to my attention before. The registration officer who contacted her was concerned that registration officers’ important discretion to refer a death to the coroner for further examination would be affected. I see nothing in the legislation or the intention behind it to suggest that that would be the case. However, I shall double check and if I am wrong, shall let the hon. Lady and other Committee members know.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I should say that the provisions in clause 66 include a comprehensive list of all local authorities with registration functions. I think, therefore, that his concerns are covered. In answer to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, deputies, like registration officers, will indeed become local authority employees. In light of our debate, I hope that both sides of the Committee will give a good loud shout in support of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 67 to 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 71 to 73 agreed to.

John Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Olner. May I pay tribute to you and your co-Chairman, Sir John? You have chaired our Committee flexibly and firmly and have helped to guide us in giving due scrutiny to all the provisions in the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the Clerks for the advice that they have given to you, Mr. Olner, to us and to the officials. I pay tribute to the Official Reporters; some of the technical points that I have made might have been a bit obscure and hard to follow—as I daresay some of my arguments have been—but they have done a marvellous job. The same is true of the police and the staff of the House, who have ensured the smooth running of our proceedings during the past two weeks.
I also pay tribute to the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople: the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet, for Fareham, for Twickenham and for Falmouth and Camborne. I also thank the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who represents both his Front Bench and his Back Bench in the Committee. Minority parties do not always take their place in legislative Committees. He is not in his place this afternoon, but he is particularly assiduous in carrying out the duties for his party on the Treasury brief, and I welcome his interest in serving on the Committee, not least because of Scotland’s decision to be a full part of the Bill, which is equally strongly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, who is in his place this afternoon.
I am also grateful to all Back-Bench Members of the Committee. They might not make the Minister’s job easier, but I welcome the contributions from both sides of the Room to the scrutiny of legislation in Committee. At the profound risk of singling some out but not others—it is like judging a beautiful baby competition—I must say that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks has brought to our proceedings his usual forensic examination of the Bill. He chaired the Treasury Committee’s inquiry, has spoken widely at conferences and to interest groups, and is therefore highly knowledgeable on the subject.
I must also mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. He has brought to our deliberations the passion that he showed in government for the people responsible for policy and public services locally. He has been clear in insisting that we use the new statistical system to recognise their role and to help them play it better.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East has worked for so long and pursued so many paths—and Ministers—to put the employment of registration officers on a proper footing. I am pleased to be the Minister who is finally able to do so, not least because it will save so many of my colleagues from his assiduous attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, has played a necessarily low-key role in the Committee’s proceedings, but one that is vital and appreciated by any Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has contributed with his usual attention to detail, both of the Bill and of debates, and is a lesson to us all in providing active Back-Bench scrutiny of legislation. This is the first such Committee on which he and I have served together in which he has not mentioned the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill, except when I mentioned them first. If he wants to correct me, I will check the official record to see whether I have made a mistake—on second thoughts, I will not, but I guess that he might.

Brooks Newmark: Will the Financial Secretary giveway? Is it the first time that the hon. Gentleman has supported the Government?

Bill Olner: Order.

John Healey: We are looking at a first for the Bill in other ways. The hon. Member for Twickenham declared himself “quite overwhelmed” by how, for the first time in 10 years, he has tabled an amendment that has been accepted. Once again, I am delighted to be in a position to make the hon. Gentleman so happy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough helped to establish a new parliamentary protocol on the acceptable use of a word as a noun rather than an adjective for the contents of the sewers of Slough. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire broke new ground too, when he proposed incorporating two minutes on the naughty step as a sanction for board members. I have persuaded parliamentary counsel to have another look at the concept of misbehaviour, but they regarded that as a step too far. [Laughter.] I am glad that the members of the Committee are still awake after our long proceedings—that was a little test for my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough.
On a slightly more serious note, we have a parliamentary first for the Committee—ours is the first Bill under the new Public Bill process, by which we have resolved to take in and publish written evidence. I am slightly disappointed that no written evidence has been submitted for us to publish, but I guess that it is early days for the new system.
The Clerk described this part of our proceedings as Oscar-winning stuff. In that vein, I wish to point out that I have refrained from mentioning my mother-in-law or, indeed, Mrs. Gauke. Finally, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West have done an excellent job of keeping us on track, in making sure that we have given due scrutiny to the Bill but in an efficient way. I have particularly valued the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West. In my own small way, I have returned that favour by dropping him a note to ensure that he knows exactly which way to vote on Report.

Theresa Villiers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Olner. I should like to join the Financial Secretary in thanking you for your excellent stewardship of the Committee and in putting on record our thanks to your co-Chairman, Sir John. I should like to thank, in his absence, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham for handling the Bill from the Front Bench for me, as well as the team behind me: my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and for South-West Hertfordshire. I am delighted that Mrs. Gauke’s name is finally on the record; I was going to ensure that it happened, but the Financial Secretary got there first.
I particularly welcome and agree warmly with the tributes paid by the Financial Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, who has brought rigorous scrutiny and huge expertise to the Committee’s deliberations. He has played an extremely strong part in the scrutiny process. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West for his usual forensic scrutiny, not only of the Opposition’s activities but of the Government’s.
Turning to the Financial Secretary, much of what he has told us in Committee has provided welcome clarification. As he will be aware, there are a number of points on which we will continue our campaign to strengthen the Bill, but we have been able to clarify some points in an important way.
I, too, welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Dundee, East and was struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham and his moving address to the Committee after his amendment was accepted. I recall that I had about 30 amendments accepted to the Finance Bill last summer, but it takes a while for such things to happen.
I should also like to place on record my thanks to the Clerks of the Committee, who have done an excellent job, to the Hansard writers, the police and the staff and to the unmentionable—the Whips—who have done an excellent job in managing the business of the Committee.

Julia Goldsworthy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Olner. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and myself, I thank you for your support and for ensuring both that we got through the Bill in a timely way and that sufficient scrutiny was undertaken. At times, debates on some groups of amendments became complicated, and we appreciate your guidance, which was essential in ensuring that we kept in order. We also appreciate the effort that the Clerks made to keep up with our ramblings. I also thank the Official Reporters for their help, and I thank the police and staff of the House for making sure that everything proceeded smoothly.
If it were a beautiful baby competition, everyone would have gone home with a prize for their contributions. We have had some interesting debates and we have covered a wide range of issues in the past couple of weeks. The Financial Secretary has been helpful and productive in dealing with the matters that Liberal Democrat Members have raised. That may be why my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Twickenham was so moved; it sounds as though he gave something akin to an Oscar acceptance speech. I am sure that he treasures his amendment being agreed to more than he would treasure an Oscar.
I thank the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet and for Fareham for being so co-operative. This has been a fairly smooth Committee. We have discussed some serious matters, but they have all been dealt with well. These proceedings have led to a first for my hon. Friend and a first for the Committee in terms of the submission of written evidence, and I hope that both precedents will be followed by many more successes.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at eight minutes to Three o’clock.